Connectedness and the real line

If you've already developed basic facts about compactness you can prove it this way:

Let $[0,1] = A \cup B$ with $A$ and $B$ closed and disjoint. Then since $A \times B$ is compact and the distance function is continuous, there is a pair $(a, b) \in A \times B$ at minimum distance. If that distance is zero, $A$ and $B$ intersect. If not, you get a contradiction by taking any point in the interval from $a$ to $b$: it can't be in either $A$ or $B$ because its distance from $b$ or $a$ is smaller than the minimum.

That shows a compact interval in $\mathbb{R}$ is connected. If $\mathbb{R} = A \cup B$ with $A$ and $B$ closed and disjoint, then for any closed interval $I$ with one endpoint in $A$ and one in $B$, $I = (A \cap I) \cup (B \cap I)$ is disconnection of $I$. Alternatively, you could write $\mathbb{R}$; as a union of closed intervals with a common point.

If you want to prove that 'complete plus densely ordered' implies connected you are almost forced to use the 'standard' proof. For the real line you could also use the bisection method: if $I$ is convex and the union of two closed sets $A$ and $B$ take $a\in A$ and $b\in B$, with $a < b$, say. Now create two sequences $(a_n)_n$ (increasing) and $(b_n)_n$ (decreasing) with $a_n\in A$, $b_n\in B$ and $b_n-a_n=(b-a)2^{-n}$; then the common limit of these sequences belongs to $I\cap A\cap B$.

It's a notoriously thorny matter to decide whether two proofs of a given theorem are "really different". But...a proof of the connectedness of the real line using real induction is given in Theorem 9 of this note of mine. This proof (to me) feels moderately different from the usual LUB proof, and I think I like it a little better.

Comments:

1) Actually what is proved is that any closed, bounded interval $[a,b]$ is connected. But you can get from here to the connectedness of $\mathbb{R}$ with no trouble at all: e.g. the union of a chain of connected subspaces is connected.

2) I certainly do not mean to suggest that I am the first person to prove the result in this way. On the contrary, please see the end of the paper and the bibliography for remarks about the (many) others who have argued (sometimes very) similarly.

3) Also Section 4 on "Topological Equivalents of Completeness in Ordered Sets" seems relevant to the spirit of the question. Again, there is no new result here but the issues are discussed with more thoroughness than in any one source I know. (As usual, please do interpret this as an invitation to expand my knowledge...)